Ahh yes.... I love when Brits chime in on our laws. The likes of Piers Morgan and company. Notice Americans don't feel the need to chime in and judge UK laws and beliefs? But boy.... the Brits are more than willing to judge USA laws and beliefs at the drop of a hat.

In world rankings for total crimes per 1000 of it's citizens (total crimes means just that, all crimes such as murder, robbery, burglary, assault, fraud, etc etc),.........the UK has 3 TIMES the amount of crimes per 1000 citizens than the USA. Hardly the ones to be chastising us Americans.

As for gun laws? They only restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow our laws to begin with..... that's why they are called criminals. A gun law is just yet another law they won't follow. That's why I support gun ownership for law abiding citizens. I ain't gonna be the fool caught using a knife in a gun fight. I'll be a dead fool.

It's always the liberals pushing for stricter gun laws, yet the very same liberals plead for leniency and mercy on behalf of defendants who have used or possessed a gun at the time they were committing a crime. I've seen defendants get gun charges reduced or dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to the main charge of robbery more times than I care to remember. It's no wonder that the majority of trial lawyers are Democrats. It's why defendants usually get a slap on the wrist for gun possession in front of liberal judges. If liberals barely want to enforce and punish for existing gun laws, what's the point of making more gun laws that they will barely want to enforce and punish for also?

We don't need guns to be tuff. Come and av a go if u fnk u r ard enuff!

You might want to leave the forum then. As it's a forum..... for discussion.
And yeah, obviously no Americans have any opinions on stuff outside of the US. That would be ludicrous.

I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

Those in glass houses......

Originally Posted by keefy

We don't need guns to be tuff. Come and av a go if u fnk u r ard enuff!

Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

In contrast......law abiding citizens pray they never have to pull out or use their guns. They are perfectly fine going their entire lives without the need to ever draw their guns.

When you accuse law abiding citizens of being "tuff" for wanting to own and possess a gun to protect themselves and their families, that's just you projecting your anti-gun emotions on others trying to shame and insult them. You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. But we choose to own guns.

I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

Okay, so Brits are allowed to have opinions as long as they fall in line with yours? Or at least aren't critical.

They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

Anyone that would criticize the US's previous and present treatment of minorities would do the same to the UK's treatment of minorities. Those with such morals wouldn't suddenly deem the treatment acceptable just because it was/is happening in their own country.

The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

Sorry, I haven't seen the results of your study confirming this. Could you post them here so I can take a look?

Those in glass houses......

My house is made out of bricks....

Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

Indeed, would it not then make sense to try and make guns more difficult to obtain? Obviously criminals are going to find ways of getting guns even if they were banned outright but it'd be worth trying to make it as difficult as possible.

I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

Those in glass houses......

Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

In contrast......law abiding citizens pray they never have to pull out or use their guns. They are perfectly fine going their entire lives without the need to ever draw their guns.

When you accuse law abiding citizens of being "tuff" for wanting to own and possess a gun to protect themselves and their families, that's just you projecting your anti-gun emotions on others trying to shame and insult them. You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. But we choose to own guns.

No Brits have in this thread been criticising American history and or American beliefs so no idea why you are so on the attack against Brits in the first place.

I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

Those in glass houses......

Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

In contrast......law abiding citizens pray they never have to pull out or use their guns. They are perfectly fine going their entire lives without the need to ever draw their guns.

When you accuse law abiding citizens of being "tuff" for wanting to own and possess a gun to protect themselves and their families, that's just you projecting your anti-gun emotions on others trying to shame and insult them. You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. But we choose to own guns.

the people you are talking about are ignorant and uneducated morons who are blind to any logical thinking due to some deep rooted racist/fascist belief so please don't tar us with the same $#@! stained brush.

Okay, so Brits are allowed to have opinions as long as they fall in line with yours? Or at least aren't critical.

Anyone that would criticize the US's previous and present treatment of minorities would do the same to the UK's treatment of minorities. Those with such morals wouldn't suddenly deem the treatment acceptable just because it was/is happening in their own country.

Sorry, I haven't seen the results of your study confirming this. Could you post them here so I can take a look?

My house is made out of bricks....

Indeed, would it not then make sense to try and make guns more difficult to obtain? Obviously criminals are going to find ways of getting guns even if they were banned outright but it'd be worth trying to make it as difficult as possible.

I never questioned a Brit's right to criticize, merely an observation that it's usually one-sided. It's like picking on a guy that almost never picks on you.

As for a study? If Brits weren't okay with public surveillance cameras everywhere, they would be gone. They would either pressure public officials to get rid of them or replace public officials with ones that will. The government will only go as far as the public allows them to go.

Here in America, local governments installed red light cameras to ticket offenders. There was no public outcry for them. The governments decided on their own that we needed them. The public was outraged and cities have been dropping the program left and right. And the ones that haven't, are being sued into dropping them.

As for this statement of yours....

Indeed, would it not then make sense to try and make guns more difficult to obtain? Obviously criminals are going to find ways of getting guns even if they were banned outright but it'd be worth trying to make it as difficult as possible

.

First off... the mentally ill son that stole his mother's gun, killed her, killed the students at Sandy Hook elementary school and killed himself.... would not have been prevented from doing so by a gun law. His mother wasn't mentally ill, she wasn't a felon or criminal and obtained it legally.

Most recreational drugs have been illegal for decades. Yet in the year 2014, I only need to make a few phone calls and have just about any drug I want. Even delivered to my house. So how did those laws making it hard to obtain drugs work out? Many people in jail or with arrest records, billions of tax dollars spent fighting it, but still plenty of drugs everywhere.

So the laws pertaining to guns will do little. There are 300+ million guns in the USA alone. Guns are a reality. There's no un-ringing that bell. And no amount of laws will change that.

Also... those that claim they don't want to ban guns and only want "sensible" gun laws that keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.....are LIARS!

Ever heard the saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? Ever heard of a "trojan horse"? Ever heard of a politician promising one thing to get elected and then does the exact opposite once the foolish voters have elected them?

My personal classic go to example is the state of California's cigarette laws.....

Back in the late 1980's, the state proposed a law that restaurants and businesses provide a separate ventilated non-smoking area so non-smokers wouldn't have to inhale the smoke. Smokers cried foul saying it's merely a Trojan horse measure to later heavily restrict or ban smoking altogether.

The proponents of the law called such comments "nonsense". That we just want to come up with a "sensible" law that helps protect the public at large, while maintaining the rights of smokers to smoke. They claimed that they had no intentions of going any further than that and that such assertions were false and unfounded.

So the smokers and the general public took them at their word and the law was passed.

NOW... fast forward a number of years. The proponents then later pushed for no smoking at all in restaurants and businesses cuz it created an unhealthy environment for employees to work in. That you must smoke outside. Swore up and down they aren't gonna go any further than that. The law passed.

Then a few more years passed and they said NOW you must smoke a certain amount of feet from the entrance. AGAIN clamming they had no intentions of going any further. The law was passed.

Then they started banning smoking in open air public beaches and parks. You could be the only person on a beach with nobody else there to possibly inhale your smoke....and you still will get a hefty fine for doing so.

Now cities are banning electronic vapor cigarettes that release only water vapor and not carcinogenic smoke....in the same places as regular cigarettes are not allowed.

So much for "sensible" and "We have no intentions of going further" bull$#@! lies!

When a gun owner hears the word "sensible gun laws" from the gun control crowd and that we have "no intentions of taking your gun rights away"........ all that gun owner really hears is "this is a stop gap measure until we go even further in taking your gun rights away in the future".

Originally Posted by keefy

No Brits have in this thread been criticising American history and or American beliefs so no idea why you are so on the attack against Brits in the first place.

This mainly had to do with Piers Morgan and those Brits that chime in along with him, but it doesn't mean ALL Brits of course.

Originally Posted by Sylar

the people you are talking about are ignorant and uneducated morons who are blind to any logical thinking due to some deep rooted racist/fascist belief so please don't tar us with the same $#@! stained brush.

I didn't tar ALL Brits. I merely made the observation that when criticism is thrown either direction, I've seen far more of it coming from Brits towards America than I have of Americans towards Britain. That's all I was saying. If you aren't one of those Brits doing it then it obviously doesn't apply to you.

Does the right to bear arms include the right to privately owned nuclear weapons?

No. There is no right to bear weapons like a gun, outside of the right to life (whether for self-defense, or hunting, etc.). A corollary of a principle (such as the right to bear arms) cannot violate the principle on which it hierarchically depends upon (the right to self-defense). A nuclear weapon — i.e., an atomic bomb — is a weapon of mass destruction. There is no such thing as the right to mass destruction, as it lies in contradiction to the right to self-defense. One does not defend oneself against a mugger by tossing a nuclear bomb.

Nuclear weapons are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons of total offense, that render (in the present context) all weapons of self-defense useless. Such a ‘right to own a nuclear weapon’ would in practice turn the right to self-defense into a chimera. After all, how does one defend oneself against a nuclear bomb? By ducking for cover?

I never questioned a Brit's right to criticize, merely an observation that it's usually one-sided. It's like picking on a guy that almost never picks on you.

As for a study? If Brits weren't okay with public surveillance cameras everywhere, they would be gone. They would either pressure public officials to get rid of them or replace public officials with ones that will. The government will only go as far as the public allows them to go.

Here in America, local governments installed red light cameras to ticket offenders. There was no public outcry for them. The governments decided on their own that we needed them. The public was outraged and cities have been dropping the program left and right. And the ones that haven't, are being sued into dropping them.

As for this statement of yours....

Most recreational drugs have been illegal for decades. Yet in the year 2014, I only need to make a few phone calls and have just about any drug I want. Even delivered to my house. So how did those laws making it hard obtain drugs work out? Many people in jail or with arrest records, billions of tax dollars spent fighting it, but still plenty of drugs everywhere.

So the laws pertaining to guns will do little. There are 300+ million guns in the USA alone. Guns are a reality. There's no un-ringing that bell. And no amount of laws will change that.

Also... those that claim they don't want to ban guns and only want "sensible" gun laws that keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.....are LIARS!

Ever heard the saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? Ever heard of a "trojan horse"? Ever heard of a politician promising one thing to get elected and then does the exact opposite once the foolish voters have elected them?

My personal classic go to example is the state of California's cigarette laws.....

Back in the late 1980's, the state proposed a law that restaurants and businesses provide a separate ventilated non-smoking area so non-smokers wouldn't have to inhale the smoke. Smokers cried foul saying it's merely a Trojan horse measure to later heavily restrict or ban smoking altogether.

The proponents of the law called such comments "nonsense". That we just want to come up with a "sensible" law that helps protect the public at large, while maintaining the rights of smokers to smoke. They claimed that they had no intentions of going any further than that and that such assertions were false and unfounded.

So the smokers and the general public took them at their word and the law was passed.

NOW... fast forward a number of years. The proponents then later pushed for no smoking at all in restaurants and businesses cuz it created an unhealthy environment for employees to work in. That you must smoke outside. Swore up and down they aren't gonna go any further than that. The law passed.

Then a few more years passed and they said NOW you must smoke a certain amount of feet from the entrance. AGAIN clamming they had no intentions of going any further. The law was passed.

Then they started banning smoking in open air public beaches and parks. You could be the only person on a beach with nobody else there to possibly inhale your smoke....and you still will get a hefty fine for doing so.

Now cities are banning electronic vapor cigarettes that release only water vapor and not carcinogenic smoke....in the same places as regular cigarettes are not allowed.

So much for "sensible" and "We have no intentions of going further" bull$#@! lies!

When a gun owner hears the word "sensible gun laws" from the gun control crowd and that we have "no intentions of taking your gun rights away"........ all that gun owner really hears is "this is a stop gap measure until we go even further in taking your gun rights away in the future".

This mainly had to do with Piers Morgan and those Brits that chime in along with him, but it doesn't mean ALL Brits of course.

I didn't tar ALL Brits. I merely made the observation that when criticism is thrown either direction, I've seen far more of it coming from Brits towards America than I have of Americans towards Britain. That's all I was saying. If you aren't one of those Brits doing it then it obviously doesn't apply to you.

I don't think there should be sensible gun laws under the guise of slowly restricting them more so. I absolutely think they should be banned outright. But as you've said, the bell has been rung on that, and just banning them probably isn't feasible. So tricking people into slowly removing the amount of guns in America, though underhanded, would be better than doing nothing.

First off... the mentally ill son that stole his mother's gun, killed her, killed the students at Sandy Hook elementary school and killed himself.... would not have been prevented from doing so by a gun law. His mother wasn't mentally ill, she wasn't a felon or criminal and obtained it legally.

And that's exactly my point. There weren't many barriers to stop that from happening. That gun was just purchased, no dodgy deals, or having the right contacts....

Like I said, of course criminals and other folk will still be able to get hold of guns (unlawfully) if they really want to. But at the moment they don't have to, they can just go buy one.

Also, we obviously have completely opposite opinions, this isn't going to go anywhere. So I'm officially declaring I shall not bother to respond directly to your response.

Is this true?, if it is, then you can completely toss automatic weapons on that pile as well.

I find this an interesting discussion on the rule of law.

A nuke is most certainly a self-defense weapon. People who say otherwise are completely missing out on the fact that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be lobbed and detonated for it to be "used". A nuclear weapon is first and foremost, a weapon of mass deterrence. The meaning WMD is a double-entendre. How something is used determines whether or not it is a weapon for self-defense. Nuclear weapons are no different. The problem isn't in the weapon in and of itself. The problem is with the individual. The libertarians are most certainly correct on this issue.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.